This is an Awareness Blog to consider the future of your world. Actions are being done now to restore our world. Watch and become AWARE!
3.5 MILLION VIEWS PER MONTH
Exclusive public outlet for documentation and notices from The Original Jurisdiction Republic 1861 circa 2010.

PLEASE
READ THIS URGENT UPDATE. Your Florida Senators are on the verge of ceding
their constitutional authority and giving Obama almost unlimited power to
tax. --Steve

Dear
Willian=m,

Our sources on Capitol Hill have informed us the Senate is working on a
backroom deal to give President Obama nearly total control over federal
spending for the rest of this fiscal year.

This is their "solution" to their self-created sequestration
crisis.

Your Florida Senators may be on the verge of ceding their constitutional
authority to Obama and giving him virtually unlimited power over taxing and
spending.

If this deal goes
through, our "Radical-in Chief" will have almost unlimited power
to raise taxes for the next seven months!

+ + GOP Senators Set
to Betray Constitution!

Under this dirty, backroom deal, Obama would essentially be given full
authority to raise taxes and set spending levels, because Congress would
need a two-thirds vote on a "resolution of disapproval" to stop
him (a near impossibility).

Top GOP Senate leaders have given their "tacit approval" to the
plan, according to a Politico report that says "Republicans are now
proposing that Congress surrender an important piece of its Constitutional
'power of the purse' for the last seven months of this fiscal year."

This proposed action by the Senate, with the support of Republicans,
borders on treason and brings America to the doorstep of totalitarianism.

This is a clear violation of the separation of powers -- Congress is
constitutionally given the authority to tax and spend. The founders
separated these powers because they lived under the TYRANNY of a king who
had both legislative and executive powers.

Now, Florida Senators stand on the verge of effectively returning us to the
days of King George III. But this time, it will be "King Barack"
who can tax us to his liking.

+ + URGENT ACTION
NEEDED!

Willian=m, I'm calling on every patriotic citizen to take action right now
and demand that the Senate NOT CEDE ITS CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO OBAMA!

+ + + + +
Grassfire, a division of Grassroots Action, Inc., is a million-strong
network of grassroots conservatives dedicated to equipping you with the
tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day. Copyright
2013 Grassroots Action, Inc.

All of those Twitter messages that appear to
represent millions of people who support President Obama's gun control
agenda... Yeah, many of those are bot-driven. In other words, they're fake.

That's what a Republican congressman from
Texas is alleging, anyway. He says the president's entire gun control
narrative is a fraud being perpetrated over one of the world's busiest
social media sites.

Rep. Steve Stockton accused Obama Feb. 25 of
trying to make support for his gun control positions more muscular than it
really is by flooding Twitter with messages from bot-driven programs, The
Hill newspaper reported.

Obama, it seems, can't get out of campaign
mode.

When your position is weak, spam it to life

The president's "anti-gun campaign is a
fraud," Stockman charged. "Obama's supporters are panicking and
willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if
it means trying to defraud Congress."

"I call upon the president to denounce
this phony spam campaign," he added.

Needless to say, the president has yet to
"denounce" anything he has said in regards to pushing for more
gun control. And we don't expect he will.

Stockman said that, in response to Obama's
call for Americans to tweet their congressman in support of new gun control
measures he has proposed - such as banning higher-capacity magazines,
military look-alike rifles and universal background checks - he only
received 16 tweets, but they were all identical. He said a closer
examination revealed that only six of them were from real people.

"The other 10 are fake,
computer-generated spambots," said Stockton's office, in a press
statement.

As evidence, he said the 10 tweets used
default graphics and names and have not engaged in any interaction
whatsoever with other people, the congressional newspaper reported. In
fact, he said two of the tweets were sent at almost exactly the same time,
and both follow just one person: Brad Schneck, the president's former
digital strategist.

The Texas lawmaker also said just one of the
six tweets from an actual person is a constituent of his in his home state.
Here is a rundown of the fraudulent tweets, per Stockman's press release:

-- They all use the default "egg"
avatar.
-- They have account names resembling names automatically suggested by
Twitter.
-- They have engaged in no human interaction.
-- They have tweeted almost nothing promotional, sponsored messages pushing
real estate websites and other liberal "grassroots"
campaigns.
-- They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.

Stockman also notes that reporter Robert
Stacy McCain's investigation of the fraudulent Obama campaign (available
at: www.theothermccain.com)
finds the majority of the Obama-supporting accounts were created in fewer
than 48 hours before contacting members of Congress.

This came in from a woman
in another country who has done all the OPPT paperwork. She is in touch
regularly with the principals at OPPT. She has good arguments suggesting
that the writing of Casper (at least in this case) have too many false statements
and should not be accepted as true. Her rebuttal follows - which makes
this "Best news of the decade" perhaps.

===-===

I have no problems with OPPT, there are many out there spreading
false stories about it, I think we would have heard if anyone has been arrested
and jailed,

Heather is not in Seattle, she is in Morrocco, she speaks with us
every day, is very open and explains all questions asked of her.

Who would want to use the Courtesy Notices in Court anyway, not
meant for that.

Then you have your Terms & Conditions. We are not
talking back our Strawman, it’s not ours to take back, it has been vaporised,
no longer exists. Look what they said about the RV. I have never read
such rubbish.

Too many holes in this article. Who wrote it, Casper?? Amazing - the
ones who want to run it down, even Winston Shrout which shocked me, they seem
to want to run their own agenda and when something better comes along, they
tramp it down.

Why don’t the naysayers supply a duly verified rebuttal of
the DECLARATION OF FACTS UCC # 2012127914, point by point, with specificity and
particularity, by duly sworn declaration, with their full responsibility and
liability, under penalty of perjury under governing law, or any law so long as
it is identified, signed by their wet ink signature; as all other discussion is
opinion presented as fact.

If they do submit a rebuttal and it fails, Heather has stated she
will register it and make them liable for it.

(CNN) - Veteran journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post said Wednesday on CNN's "The Situation Room" that a White House official told him "very clearly, you will regret doing this" after publishing a piece rebutting part of the Obama administration's argument on the sequester.

The Washington Post's Bob Woodward said on Wednesday that a "very senior" White House official threatened him over his continued public disagreements with the Obama administration.

Woodward has repeatedly accused the White House of "moving the goal posts" in the fight over the looming budget sequester. He has been challenged on the facts of his assertions many times, but has not strayed from them.

Speaking to Wolf Blitzer on Wednesday, Woodward described a tense series of exchanges he had with the White House.

"Well, they're not happy at all, and some people kind of, you know, said, look, we don't see eye to eye on this," Woodward said. "They've said that this is factually wrong, and it was said to me in an e-mail by a top --"

"What was said?" Blitzer prodded. "It was said very clearly, you will regret doing this," Woodward said.

"Who sent that e-mail to you?" Blitzer asked. "Well, I'm not going to say," Woodward said.

"Was it a senior person at the White House?" Blitzer asked.

"A very senior person," Woodward said. "It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, you're going to regret doing something that you believe in."

Sandman
has invited you to the event 'III Congress' on WELL REGULATED AMERICAN
MILITIAS !!

Time to stand and be counted, if you are afraid of
being put on a list or content in your servitude, then stay home. We will
forget you are our countrymen.

Time:
April 19, 2013 to April 20, 2013Location: Kings Mountain National Military Park, South
CarolinaOrganized By: III Congress and Delegates thereof.

Event
Description:
A Meeting of Militia and Patriots
Mission Statement submitted and Revised by TL Davis (Constitutional
Author)
Statement
You do not need to join or sign up to attend. Delegate dues are
voluntary and help pay to get the message out.

The US government is going to kill the
small banking industry in the US. The irony is hard to miss. It was not the
small banks that threatened the financial system in the crisis of 2008. Yet
they will bear the brunt of the regulatory costs imposed in its wake. The end
result will be that US banking assets will collect into the hands of even
larger banks.

It is a shame. Yet the death of the lamb is the life of the wolf, as an old
saying has it. In other words, it is not all bad for everybody, as I?ll
explain below.

First, let me begin with a piece of anecdotal evidence from the departing CEO
of Third Street Bancshares, based in Marietta, Ohio. His name is James Meagle
Jr., and he had been in banking for 40 years.

A CEO leaves some company somewhere every day. That, in itself, is not news.
But few CEOs depart by saying that the company he?s leaving might not
survive. Citing tremendous changes in regulatory costs and compliance issues,
Meagle said he ?didn?t have the patience anymore.? His old bank will have to
spend about $100,000 to meet new demands from regulators. For a little bank
with one branch, $100,000 is a lot of money. I bet it is a big chunk of the
money it makes in a year. Third Street is privately held, so we can?t know
for sure.

?I don?t know how we?re going to be able to make it,? Meagle tells SNL
Financial. ?We can [survive], but we?re just spending so much time and energy
complying with these new regulations.?

?Absolutely ludicrous,? is how he described the regulators? level of
scrutiny.

What?s this bank to do? Merge.

?We?ve been able to hold our earnings up and we?re still well capitalized,?
Meagle continues ?but what I see coming in the future is not pretty. We
really do not want to sell, but we may have no other options.?

It?s a story I?ve heard often from banking industry executives, as well as
from professional investors in the banking sector. The small banks will have
to sell out to larger banks, which can spread out those costs over a larger
asset base.

Some more color to the backdrop may help you focus in here. Let us consider
the US banking system. What does it look like? Well, the top 20 banks hold
nearly 80% of the industry?s assets today. Take a look at the nearby chart.

The question naturally arises: How big do you have to be to earn an attractive
return as a banking franchise in the US of A?

It?s an unsettled question, even among industry insiders. What?s nearly
certain is that the 2,490 banks on the bottom are toast. Those are the Third
Street Bancshares of the world. Way too small to even make a go of it, like a
9-year-old trying to block linebacker Ray Lewis.

The next level up will probably have to sellout as well. These are the
4,000-plus banks with assets up to $1 billion. In fact, regulatory costs, as
well as banks? net profit margins (from low interest rates), put pressure on
the next block up to consolidate.

Now here is the opportunity ? and more irony.

What big
banks know could cost you...

The last time big banks knew something the general public didn?t, ordinary
people got burned. This time, not knowing what they know could leave you
out in the cold...

For good banks, buyouts occur at premiums to book value. Yet many healthy
small banks trade below book value. In fact, in a recent issue of Mayer?s Special Situations,
I urged my subscribers to invest in three specific small banks. Each of them
trades below book value. Each of them has plenty of capital. And my bet is
that at least one of them ? and maybe all of them ? gets bought out at a
premium to book value in the next five years.

I expect we?ll see many of the smaller banks combining over the next several
years, like droplets of water forming with other droplets of water to make
bigger and bigger drops of waters. As investors, you gain by owning the
undervalued, small banks.

But you can also play the acquirers. Here, you want to own the healthy predators,
such as Republic
Bancorp (NASDAQ:RBCAA), which has picked up a couple of
failed banks in the last couple of years. It is a consolidator of banks and
will grow as a result of the acquisitions.

Investors benefit from consolidation because larger banks get a better
multiple.

Some months ago, I spoke with John Palmer at PL Capital, an outstanding
investor in bank stocks. As John explained, ?The larger the bank, the better
they tend to trade off of book value.? Typically, a $3 billion bank will have
a higher trading multiple than a $1 billion bank. And a $1 billion bank will
have a higher trading multiple than a $500 million bank. So by moving up the
food chain, a bank can actually increase its trading value based on asset
size.

?That?s why these companies are looking to buy other banks and get bigger,?
John said. ?If they can move from $1.5 billion to $3 billion and get some
cost savings out of it, they are going to get a higher trading value. If they
can go from $3 billion to $5 billion, they are going to get a higher trading
value again.?

The unfortunate part is that the industry consolidation underway will mean
the death of the small community bank. The consequence of all those new rules
and regulations is that the US banking system will become even more
top-heavy. Banks will get even bigger. Banking assets will concentrate in
fewer hands. And while I expect there will be lots of foot-dragging and
resistance from entrenched boards and management teams, I think the deals
will get done. There is too much money at stake.

The eventual death of small banks ought to mean good returns over the next
few years as these dynamics play out. For investors in bank stocks, the irony
is profitable.

The
2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be “hidden”
from the consumer, but it's been brought to the public’s attention by
hunting and fishing store Cabela’s who have refused to hide it and are showing
it as a separate line item tax on their receipts.

Anyone still believe Obama didn't raise taxes on the middle
class???

The
2.3% Medical Excise Tax that began on January 1st is supposed to be “hidden”
from the consumer, but it's been brought to the public’s attention by
hunting and fishing store Cabela’s who have refused to hide it and are showing
it as a separate line item tax on their receipts.

Please send this
information to ALL your family & friends, especially those who have kids in
the car with them while pumping gas. If this were to happen, they may not be
able to get the children out in time.

Bob Renkes of Petroleum Equipment Institute is working on a campaign to try and
make people aware of fires as a result of 'static electricity' at gas pumps.
His company has researched 150 cases of these fires.

His results were very surprising:

1) Out of 150 cases, almost all of them were women.

2) Almost all cases involved the person getting back in their vehicle while the
nozzle was still pumping gas. When finished, they went back to pull the nozzle
out and the fire started, as a result of static.

3) Most had on rubber-soled shoes.

4) Most men never get back in their vehicle until completely finished. This is
why they are seldom involved in these types of fires.

5) Don't ever use cell phones when pumping gas

6) It is the vapors that come out of the gas that cause the fire, when
connected with static charges.

7) There were 29 fires where the vehicle was re-entered and the nozzle was
touched during refueling from a variety of makes and models. Some resulted in
extensive damage to the vehicle, to the station, and to the customer.

8) Seventeen fires occurred before, during or immediately after the gas cap was
removed and before fueling began.

Mr. Renkes stresses to NEVER get back into your vehicle while filling it with
gas.
If you absolutely HAVE to get in your vehicle while the gas is pumping, make
sure you get out, close the door TOUCHING THE METAL, before you ever pull the
nozzle out. This way the static from your body will be discharged before you
ever remove the nozzle.

As I mentioned earlier, The Petroleum Equipment Institute, along with several
other companies now, are really trying to make the public aware of this danger.

I ask you to please send this information to ALL your family and friends,
especially those who have kids in the car with them while pumping gas. If this
were to happen to them, they may not be able to get the children out in time.

All of those Twitter messages that appear to
represent millions of people who support President Obama's gun control
agenda... Yeah, many of those are bot-driven. In other words, they're fake.

That's what a Republican congressman from
Texas is alleging, anyway. He says the president's entire gun control
narrative is a fraud being perpetrated over one of the world's busiest social
media sites.

Rep. Steve Stockton accused Obama Feb. 25 of
trying to make support for his gun control positions more muscular than it
really is by flooding Twitter with messages from bot-driven programs, The
Hill newspaper reported.

Obama, it seems, can't get out of campaign
mode.

When your position is weak, spam it to life

The president's "anti-gun campaign is a
fraud," Stockman charged. "Obama's supporters are panicking and
willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if
it means trying to defraud Congress."

"I call upon the president to denounce
this phony spam campaign," he added.

Needless to say, the president has yet to
"denounce" anything he has said in regards to pushing for more gun
control. And we don't expect he will.

Stockman said that, in response to Obama's
call for Americans to tweet their congressman in support of new gun control
measures he has proposed - such as banning higher-capacity magazines, military
look-alike rifles and universal background checks - he only received 16
tweets, but they were all identical. He said a closer examination revealed
that only six of them were from real people.

"The other 10 are fake,
computer-generated spambots," said Stockton's office, in a press
statement.

As evidence, he said the 10 tweets used
default graphics and names and have not engaged in any interaction whatsoever
with other people, the congressional newspaper reported. In fact, he said two
of the tweets were sent at almost exactly the same time, and both follow just
one person: Brad Schneck, the president's former digital strategist.

The Texas lawmaker also said just one of the
six tweets from an actual person is a constituent of his in his home state.
Here is a rundown of the fraudulent tweets, per Stockman's press release:

-- They all use the default "egg"
avatar.
-- They have account names resembling names automatically suggested by
Twitter.
-- They have engaged in no human interaction.
-- They have tweeted almost nothing promotional, sponsored messages pushing
real estate websites and other liberal "grassroots" campaigns.
-- They follow mostly MSNBC anchors or media outlets, not actual people.

Stockman also notes that reporter Robert Stacy
McCain's investigation of the fraudulent Obama campaign (available at: www.theothermccain.com)
finds the majority of the Obama-supporting accounts were created in fewer
than 48 hours before contacting members of Congress.

Traditionally the mafia controls operations in
gambling, prostitution, protection, extortion (extortion- Like Obamacare and
insurance?) and loan-sharking, yet recent evidence shows that they might
actually be adding renewable energy to that list.

Italian police have recently discovered links
between the Sicilian crime families known as the Cosa Nostra, and wind and
solar power companies in the area. Law enforcement officers have taken around
a dozen crime bosses off to jail, along with corrupt officials and company
executives; they have also seized around 30 percent of Sicily’s wind farms,
and have frozen more than $2 billion worth of assets.

Back in 2010 a similar police operation saw
the seizure of over 40 companies, land, buildings, factories, bank accounts,
stocks, cars, and yachts from the Sicilian business man Vito Nicastri, also
known as the ‘Lord of the Wind’ due to his investments in wind farms and
solar panel factories.

It is likely that the Mafia has been attracted
to renewable energy for several reasons; Sicily is a sunny, windy island that
offers great alternative energy opportunities; much like Germany and Spain,
Italy has been awarding generous subsidies to try and encourage the development
of renewable energy projects; and also, the renewable energy industry offers
a legitimate business which is likely to be around for many years and can
provide a good front for the family.

Other renewable energy projects in Sardinia
and Apulia are also being investigated for their connection to known crime
families.

Tuesday’s ruling pitches the Fourth Amendment protection against
unreasonable search and seizure into the dustbin of history. Photo: Library of
Congress.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court disemboweled the Fourth Amendment. In a 5-4
decision, the Court ruled that citizens cannot challenge government wiretapping
laws, in particular the unconstitutional Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 and, more recently, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008.

According to
Justice Samuel Alito, millions of Americans can no longer expect the government
to uphold the Constitution and prevent the NSA from conducting dragnet surveillance.

FISA is a near
perfect scheme for the government. It allows the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to rubber-stamp surveillance requests of supposed terrorists
(the Justice Department claims there are over a million terrorists in America). The feds are not
obliged to identify a target and they can conduct surveillance a week before
making a FISA Court request. Surveillance can continue in the unlikely event
that a request is denied and an appeal is set in motion.

Following the
attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act. It allows federal
agents to write their own search warrants in violation of the Fourth Amendment
and does away with the FISA-issued search warrant requirement, itself blatantly
unconstitutional.

“FISA gives the
government unchecked authority to snoop on all Americans who communicate with
any foreign person, in direct contravention of the Fourth Amendment,” Andrew Napolitano wrote in December. “The right to privacy
is a natural human right. Its enshrinement in the Constitution has largely kept
America from becoming East Germany.”

Alito’s argument
rests on the fact that FISA is a secret court. “Yet respondents have no actual
knowledge of the Government’s §1881a targeting practices. Instead, respondents
merely speculate and make assumptions about whether their communications with
their foreign contacts will be acquired under §1881a,” he wrote.

Tuesday’s ruling
pitches the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure
into the dustbin of history. It means we are one step closer to becoming East
Germany where the Stasi conducted dragnet surveillance with impunity.

Stasi, however,
was old school. The modern high-tech surveillance state is infinitely more
effective and will be used to monitor the political attitudes of all Americans
in dragnet fashion and ferret out for persecution – and elimination – those who pose a threat to the status
quo.

Is the United States government REALLY preparing for a 'Soviet Style' purge
of Americans? If so, wouldn't that make the US government a TERRORIST
organization? According to Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson in this video,
DHS-funded drones will very soon be targeting legal gun owners in
America. If this is true, shouldn't it now be declared that the Department of
Homeland Security is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION akin to Al-Qaeda that deserves
the FULL WRATH of PUNISHMENT deserved of any other TERRORIST ORGANIZATION? It
sure appears to me that the DHS and the Obama Administration are walking upon a
very slippery slope and that freedom is at greater risk than at any prior time
in American history. Why would a government threaten such terror against law
abiding citizens and think that they can get away with it?

If the US government and Department of Homeland Security will be using
drones against law abiding American citizens, by the FBI's own definition of Terrorism, the Department of Homeland
Security and the Obama Administration should now be legally labeled Domestic
Terrorists against Americans!

The FBI utilizes a definition of terrorism based upon the agency’s
general functions under 28 CFR § 0.85. Under this regulation an act of
terrorism is defined by “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons
or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or
any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
The USA PATRIOT Act expanded this definition to include domestic acts within
the definition of terrorism. Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act modified the legal
definition of terrorism (18 USC § 2331) to include a category of “domestic
terrorism” that is defined by “acts dangerous to human life that are a
violation of the criminal laws
of the United States or of any State” intended to “intimidate or coerce a
civilian population”, “influence the policy of a government by intimidation or
coercion” or “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping” that are conducted primarily within the
jurisdiction of the U.S. One of the defining features of terrorist acts
has always been a component of violence. Even under the expanded
definition of terrorism created by the USA PATRIOT Act, there must be an act
that is “dangerous to human life” indicating some form of physical harm to
others could arise from the action.

Henry Morgenthau, Jr. (pron.:/ˈmɔrɡənθɔː/; May 11, 1891 – February 6, 1967) was the U.S.
Secretary of the Treasury during the
administration of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. He played a major role in
designing and financing the New Deal.
After 1937, while still in charge of the Treasury, he played the central role
in financing US participation in World War II. He also played an increasingly
major role in shaping foreign policy, especially with respect to Lend Lease,
support for China, helping Jewish refugees, and (in the "Morgenthau Plan")
preventing Germany from ever again being a military threat.[1]

Early life

Morgenthau was born into
a prominent Jewish family in New York City, the son of Henry Morgenthau, Sr., a real estate mogul
and diplomat, and Josephine Sykes. He had three sisters. He attended what is
now the Dwight School, then studied architecture and
agriculture at Cornell University. In 1913, he met and became
friends with Franklin and Eleanor
Roosevelt. He operated a farm near the Roosevelt estate in upstate New
York, specializing, like FDR, in growing Christmas trees.[2]
He was concerned about distress among farmers, who comprised over a fourth of
the population. In 1922 he took over the American Agriculturalist
magazine, making it a voice for reclamation, conservation, and scientific
farming.[1]
In 1929, Roosevelt, as Governor of New York, appointed him chair of
the New York State Agricultural Advisory Committee and to the state
Conservation Commission.

In 1933, Roosevelt
became President and appointed Morgenthau governor of the Federal Farm Board. Morgenthau was nonetheless
involved in monetary decisions. Roosevelt adopted the idea of raising the price
of gold to inflate the currency and reverse the debilitating deflation of prices.
The idea came from Professor George Warren of Cornell University. When
Roosevelt told Morgenthau he was thinking of raising the price of gold by 21
cents, his entourage asked him why. "It's a lucky number", Roosevelt
said. "Because it's three times seven." As Morgenthau later wrote,
"If anybody knew how we really set the gold price through a combination of
lucky numbers, etc., I think they would be frightened." [3]

To protect the New Deal,
in 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt asked Morgenthau to
examine the taxes of William Randolph Hearst because FDR was
"advised that Hearst was planning to use his newspapers to launch a major
attack on the New Deal and its economic policies."[4]
Treasury Secretary Morgenthau explained that he examined the taxes of William Randolph Hearst and actress Marion
Davies and "advised FDR to mount a preemptive attack on both her and
Hearst."[4][5]

The Great Depression and
its rampant unemployment were of primary focus for Morgenthau. And after almost
two terms served by Roosevelt, Morgenthau assessed the federal effort to
relieve economic conditions by proclaiming, "We have tried spending money.
We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not
work....After eight years of this administration we have just as much
unemployment as when we started...and an enormous debt to boot!"[6]
Indeed, the unemployment rate for 1939 was higher than the unemployment rate
for 1931, but lower than 1932.[7]

Morgenthau used his
position as Treasury chief to investigate organized crime and government corruption.
Treasury Intelligence and other agencies (the notoriously fragmented US federal
law enforcement system had five in the Treasury Department alone) were
uncoordinated in their efforts; efforts to create a super-agency were stalled
by J. Edgar Hoover, who feared his FBI would be
overshadowed. Nevertheless, Morgenthau created a coordinator for the Treasury
agencies; although the coordinator could not control them, he could move them
to some cooperation. Former head of IRS' criminal investigators Elmer Lincoln Irey who had directed major
investigations including the successful prosecution of Al Capone
assumed the position in 1937. Investigations of official corruption caused the
fall of political boss Thomas "Big Tom" Pendergast of Kansas
City. A Mafia-related shootout and massive official corruption led to
successful investigations against the local Mafia head Charles
Carrollo and Tom Pendergast.[8]
Other officials — as well as gangsters, in a few rare cases — were convicted
because of Morgenthau's investigations.

Morgenthau believed in balanced budgets, stable currency,
reduction of the national debt, and the need for more private
investment. The Wagner Act regarding labor unions met Morgenthau's
requirement because it strengthened the party's political base and involved no
new spending. Morgenthau accepted Roosevelt's double budget as legitimate —
that is, a balanced regular budget, and an "emergency" budget for
agencies, like the Works Progress Administration (WPA), Public Works Administration (PWA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), that
would be temporary until full recovery was at hand. He fought against the
veterans’ bonus until Congress finally overrode Roosevelt's veto and gave out
$2.2 billion in 1936. In the 1937 "Depression within the Depression",
Morgenthau was unable to persuade Roosevelt to desist from continued deficit
spending. Roosevelt continued to push for more spending, and Morgenthau
promoted a balanced budget. In 1937, however, Morgenthau successfully convinced
Roosevelt to finally focus on balancing the budget through major spending cuts
and tax increases; Keynesian economists have argued that this new attempt by
Roosevelt to balance the budget created the Recession
of 1937.[9]
On November 10, 1937, Morgenthau gave a speech to the Academy of Political
Science at New York's Hotel Astor, in which he noted that the Depression had
required deficit spending, but that the government needed to cut spending to
revive the economy. In his speech, he said:[10]

"We
want to see private business expand. … We believe that one of the most
important ways of achieving these ends at this time is to continue progress
toward a balance of the federal budget."

His biggest success was
the new Social Security program; he
reversed the proposals to fund it from general revenue and insisted it be
funded by new taxes on employees. Morgenthau insisted on excluding farm workers
and domestic servants from Social Security because workers outside industry
would not be paying their way.[11]
He questioned the value of the deficit spending that had not reduced
unemployment and only added debt:[6]

"We
have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before
and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong …
somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to
see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never
made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we
have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to
boot."[12]

To reduce the deficit he argued for increased taxes, particularly on the
wealthy.

"We have never
begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay
what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay."[12]

Once confronted by the Holocaust,
the Allied
Powers reacted slowly. Refusing the initial appeal of Jewish organizations
for Allied countries to deliver food and medicine to the ghettos of Europe,
the British and U.S. governments argued that supplies would be diverted for the
Germans' personal use or would be granted to the Jews just to free the Third Reich
from its "responsibility" to feed them. A license granted in December
1942 for such shipments had minimal effect. In 1943, the Treasury Department
approved the World Jewish Congress' plan to rescue Jews
through the use of blocked accounts in Switzerland, but the State Department and the British Foreign Office procrastinated
further. Morgenthau and his staff persisted in bypassing State and ultimately
confronting Roosevelt in January 1944, along with increasing calls from
Congress and the public for a presidential rescue commission; the eventual
result was the executive creation of the US War
Refugee Board in January 1944. The "Bergson Group" led by Hillel Kook
was the most vocal group of activists calling for rescue, had considerable
support in Congress and Senate as well from Eleanor Roosevelt and prepared the
ground for Roosevelt's eventual decision. The Board sponsored the Raoul
Wallenberg mission to Budapest and allowed an increasing number of Jews to
enter the U.S. in 1944 and 1945; as many as 200,000 Jews were saved in this way.[13]

Hurwitz
(1991) argues that in late 1943, the Treasury Department drafted a report
calling for the creation of a special rescue agency for European Jewry. At the
same time, several congressmen connected with the "Bergson Boys" introduced a resolution also
calling for the creation of such an agency. On January 16, 1944, Morgenthau presented
Roosevelt with the Treasury report, and the president agreed to create the War
Refugee Board (WRB), the first major attempt of the United States to deal
with the annihilation of European Jews.

Morgenthau advocated the
summary execution without trial of the top 50 or 100 alleged Nazi criminals[14]
and had some success, but in the end the Nuremberg
trials became the chosen option.

In 1944, Morgenthau proposed
the Morgenthau Plan for postwar Germany, calling for Germany to lose the heavy
industry, and the Ruhr area "should not only be stripped of all presently
existing industries but so weakened and controlled that it can not in the
foreseeable future become an industrial area".[15]
Germany would keep its rich farmlands in the east. However Stalin insisted on
the Oder-Neisse border, which moved those farming areas out of Germany.
Therefore the original Morgenthau plan had to be dropped, Weinberg argues,
because it was "too soft on the Germans, not too hard as some still
imagine."[16]

At the Second Quebec Conference on September 16,
1944, Roosevelt and Morgenthau persuaded the initially very reluctant British
Prime Minister Winston Churchill to agree to the Morgenthau
plan, likely using a $6 billion Lend Lease
agreement to do so.[17]
Churchill chose however to narrow the scope of Morgenthau's proposal by
drafting a new version of the memorandum, which ended up being the version
signed by the two statesmen.[17]
The gist of the signed memorandum was "This programme for eliminating the
war-making industries in the Ruhr and in the Saar is
looking forward to converting Germany into a country primarily agricultural and
pastoral in its character."

The plan faced opposition in
Roosevelt's cabinet, primarily from Henry
L. Stimson, and when the plan was leaked to the press, there was public
criticism of Roosevelt.[18]
The President's response to inquiries was to deny the press reports.[19]
As a consequence of the leak, Morgenthau was in bad favor with Roosevelt for a
time.

German Propaganda Minister Joseph
Goebbels used the leaked plan, with some success, to encourage the German
people to persevere in their war efforts so that their country would not be
turned into a "potato field." [20]
General George Marshall complained to Morgenthau that
German resistance had strengthened.[21]
Hoping to get Morgenthau to relent on his plan for Germany, Roosevelt's
son-in-law, Lt. Colonel John Boettiger, who worked in the United States War Department,
explained to Morgenthau how the American troops that had had to fight for five
weeks against fierce German resistance to capture Aachen and
complained to him that the Morgenthau Plan was "worth thirty divisions to
the Germans." In late 1944, Roosevelt's election opponent, Thomas
Dewey, said it was worth "ten divisions". Morgenthau refused to
relent.[22]

On May 10, 1945, Truman
signed the U.S. occupation directive JCS 1067.
Morgenthau told his staff that it was a big day for the Treasury, and that he
hoped that "someone doesn't recognize it as the Morgenthau Plan."[23]
The directive, which was in effect for over two years directed the U.S. forces
of occupation to "...take no steps looking toward the economic
rehabilitation of Germany".[24]

In occupied Germany
Morgenthau left a direct legacy through what in OMGUS commonly were
called "Morgenthau boys". These were U.S. Treasury officials whom
General Dwight D. Eisenhower had "loaned" in
to the Army of occupation. These people ensured that JCS 1067 was interpreted
as strictly as possible. They were most active in the first crucial months of
the occupation, but continued their activities for almost two years following
the resignations of Morgenthau in mid-1945, and some time later, of their
leader, Colonel Bernard Bernstein, who was "the repository
of the Morgenthau spirit in the army of occupation".[25]
They resigned when, in July 1947, JCS 1067 was replaced by JCS 1779 which instead stressed that
"An orderly, prosperous Europe requires the economic contributions of a
stable and productive Germany."

In October 1945, Morgenthau
published a book titled Germany Is Our Problem
in which he described and motivated the Morgenthau plan in great detail.[27]
Roosevelt had granted permission for the book the evening before his death,
when dining with Morgenthau at Warm Springs. Morgenthau had asked Churchill
for permission to also include the text of the then still secret
"pastoralization" memorandum signed by Churchill and FDR at Quebec but permission was denied.[28]
In November 1945 General Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Military Governor of
the U.S. Occupation Zone, approved
the distribution of 1000 free copies of the book to American military officials
in occupied Germany. Historian Stephen
Ambrose draws the conclusion that, despite Eisenhower's later claims that
the act was not an endorsement of the Morgenthau plan, Eisenhower both approved
of the plan and had previously given Morgenthau at least some of his ideas on
how Germany should be treated.[29]

Following his resignation,
along with other prominent individuals such as the former first lady, Eleanor
Roosevelt, Morgenthau remained for several years an active member of the
group campaigning for a "harsh peace" for Germany.[30]

Morgenthau resigned in
mid-1945, when Truman became President and Morgenthau's advice was
no longer sought. He devoted the remainder of his life to working with Jewish
philanthropies, and also became a financial advisor to Israel. Tal Shahar,
an Israeli moshav
(agricultural community) near Jerusalem, created in 1948, was named in his honor
(Morgenthau means "morning dew" in German,
and so does the Hebrew
name "Tal Shahar").

Blum, John Morton, ed. From
the Morgenthau Diaries, a 3-volume narrative of Morgenthau's New Deal
years (1928–45) based very closely on his diary.; abridged edition: Roosevelt
and Morgenthau: A Revision and Condensation of From the Morgenthau
Diaries (1970)

Nesaranews Mission Statement

Question -- What is the goal of this website? Why do we share different sources of information that sometimes conflicts or might even be considered disinformation?

Answer -- The primary goal of Nesaranews is to help all people become better truth-seekers in a real-time boots-on-the-ground fashion. This is for the purpose of learning to think critically, discovering the truth from within—not just believing things blindly because it came from an "authority" or credible source. Instead of telling you what the truth is, we share information from many sources so that you can discern it for yourself. We focus on teaching you the tools to become your own authority on the truth, gaining self-mastery, sovereignty, and freedom in the process. We want each of you to become your own leaders and masters of personal discernment, and as such, all information should be vetted, analyzed and discerned at a personal level. We also encourage you to discuss your thoughts in the comments section of this site to engage in a group discernment process.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle

11

Followers

The articles on this blog are reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.

US Supreme Court, in 1985, “Dowling v. United States”, unequivocally held that allegations of copyright infringement can be prosecuted only under copyright-specific legislation, not criminal law.